Friday, September 1, 2017

Equilibrium Corporate Structure: Why "For Profit"?

This is a reasonable question, since some of the organizational patterns involved, generate access outcomes that are more commonly associated with not for profit activity. However, a substantial portion of such outcomes would also gain formal economic recognition, via new means of wealth creation. In particular, the total time value of all involved, could also contribute to general equilibrium wealth so as to gradually lessen the need for centralized redistribution.

Processes such as this, could eventually make possible a stronger trajectory for long term growth. Indeed: From the early days of this project, I suspected a different designation might be needed, which could transcend the standard definitions of profit and not for profit activity.

Basically, the for profit structure of the equilibrium corporation, can be thought of as including both tradable sector capacity and non tradable sector capacity. The tradable aspect of this institution is more traditional, in that the building and infrastructure components it generates, would also be accessible for surrounding economies.  All equilibrium corporation participants have ownership options for infrastructure and building components, whereas these same materials would be available for other potential consumers as manufactured product.

Whereas the non tradable sector (services) aspect of this organization, is intended for internal use, so as to avoid both debt formation and unnecessary divisions in long term knowledge use and personal ability (I'll try to explain this further in a later post). Time arbitrage would make it possible to accurately measure the internal provision of services generation. By decentralizing knowledge use, the productive agglomeration that is associated with capitalism, would finally gain the ability to expand beyond its currently existing limits. New communities would come to reflect a fuller range of economic
complexity and human capital potential.

While physical infrastructure and building components are somewhat typical "profit territory" for any corporation, it's the carefully managed gains of aggregate time value, which uniquely define the equilibrium corporate structure. With time value as an integral part of final product, societies would once again be able to commit to the widespread use of knowledge, as a major wealth creation factor. No discussion regarding long term growth is really complete, without the consideration of full knowledge use potential, alongside manufacturing and commodity potential.

How to envision what is at stake, in terms of economic dynamism? Imagine, for instance, the economy as a living organism, for a broader framing of perceived monopoly positions. What, exactly, is being "monopolized"? Does that monopoly present substantial access problems for final product, or is it simply a way of defining how organizational capacity for the product, takes place? If the answer is the latter, this form of monopoly does not present a Malthusian problem.

For instance, social media monopolies aren't really problematic, because they have massively expanded a marketplace for communication, at a limited cost to consumers. Therefore, efforts to break up social media monopolies could be counterproductive, since such efforts may not generate substantial differences in marketplace size or aggregate consumer access. Think of platforms for social media as relatively unobstructed arteries, in terms of marketplace size and access.

On the other hand, monopolies in non tradable institutions, continue to present problems for marketplace limitations. While tradable sector centralization often functions as efficient arteries, too much non tradable sector centralization has instead posed as arteries for circulation, when in fact it is necessary to include the work of capillaries for these local economic functions.

Again, remember where centralization can sometimes prove effective, as opposed to where centralized activities have no chance of being effective, especially for apparent monopoly activity. When we think of the economy as an organism, the point is not about a need to further divide arteries which are capable of providing full distribution. What's at stake, is restoring activity to the almost imperceptible, basically lateral flows of economic circulation which have been severely disrupted in recent decades. The equilibrium corporate structure, is one institution which would seek to restore economic dynamism to the capillaries of an economic body.

No comments:

Post a Comment